from the and-others'-jobs-as-well dept

There's been an awful lot of talk these days about how the machines (and "AI") are coming to take all of our jobs. While I'm definitely of the opinion that the coming changes are likely to be quite disruptive, many of the doom and gloom scenarios are overblown, in that they focus solely on what may be going away, rather than what may be gained. If there's anyone out there who might be forgiven for worrying the most about computers "taking over," it would be Garry Kasparov, the famed chess champion who took on the Deep Blue chess playing computer and lost back in 1997. However, in a new (possibly paywalled) WSJ piece, Kasparov more or less explains how, even now as AI is moving into all sorts of fields previously thought safe from automation, he's come to embrace the possibilities, rather than fear the losses:

It is no secret that I hate losing, and I did not take [losing to Deep Blue] well. But losing to a computer wasn’t as harsh a blow to me as many at the time thought it was for humanity as a whole. The cover of Newsweek called the match “The Brain’s Last Stand.” Those six games in 1997 gave a dark cast to the narrative of “man versus machine” in the digital age, much as the legend of John Henry did for the era of steam and steel.

But it’s possible to draw a very different lesson from my encounter with Deep Blue. Twenty years later, after learning much more about the subject, I am convinced that we must stop seeing intelligent machines as our rivals. Disruptive as they may be, they are not a threat to humankind but a great boon, providing us with endless opportunities to extend our capabilities and improve our lives.

There's a lot more in the essay, but basically Kasparov recognizes that there's tremendous opportunity in looking at what smarter machines can actually do to help more and more people:

What a luxury to sit in a climate-controlled room with access to the sum of human knowledge on a device in your pocket and lament that we don’t work with our hands anymore! There are still plenty of places in the world where people work with their hands all day, and also live without clean water and modern medicine. They are literally dying from a lack of technology.

And, towards the end, he notes that while there may not be easy answers, there are plenty of opportunities. While many people today insist that since they cannot think of what the new jobs will be, there can't possibly be any, the reality is that just a few decades ago, you would probably not have been able to predict many of today's internet/tech related jobs. And Kasparov is optimistic that freeing us up from more menial jobs may open up much greater opportunities for people to put their minds to work:

Compare what a child can do with an iPad in a few minutes to the knowledge and time it took to do basic tasks with a PC just a decade ago. These advances in digital tools mean that less training and retraining are required for those whose jobs are taken by robots. It is a virtuous cycle, freeing us from routine work and empowering us to use new technology productively and creatively.

Machines that replace physical labor have allowed us to focus more on what makes us human: our minds. Intelligent machines will continue that process, taking over the more menial aspects of cognition and elevating our mental lives toward creativity, curiosity, beauty and joy. These are what truly make us human, not any particular activity or skill like swinging a hammer—or even playing chess.

I am sure that some will dismiss this as a retread of techno-utopianism, but I think it's important for people to be focusing on more broadly understanding these changes. That doesn't mean ignoring or downplaying the disruption for those whose lives it will certainly impact, but so much of the discussion has felt like people throwing up their arms helplessly. There will be opportunities for new types of work, but part of that is having more people thinking through these possibilities and building new companies and services that recognize this future. Even if you can't predict exactly what kinds of new jobs there will be (or even if you're convinced that no new jobs will be coming), it's at the very least a useful thought exercise to start thinking through some possibilities to better reflect where things are going, and Kasparov's essay is a good start.

from the beep-boop dept

Questions about how we approach our new robotic friends once the artificial intelligence revolution really kicks off are not new, nor are calls for developing some sort of legal framework that will govern how humanity and robots ought to interact with one another. For the better part of this decade, in fact, there have been some advocating that robots and AI be granted certain rights along the lines of what humanity, or at least animals, enjoy. And, while some of its ideas haven't been stellar, such as a call for robots to be afforded copyright for anything they might create, the EU has been talking for some time about developing policy around the rights and obligations of artificial intelligence and its creators.

In a new report, members of the European Parliament have made it clear they think it’s essential that we establish comprehensive rules around artificial intelligence and robots in preparation for a “new industrial revolution.” According to the report, we are on the threshold of an era filled with sophisticated robots and intelligent machines “which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched.” As a result, the need for legislation is greater than ever to ensure societal stability as well as the digital and physical safety of humans.

The report looks into the need to create a legal status just for robots which would see them dubbed “electronic persons.” Having their own legal status would mean robots would have their own legal rights and obligations, including taking responsibility for autonomous decisions or independent interactions.

It's quite easy to make offhand remarks about all of this being science fiction, but this isn't without sense. Something like the artificial intelligence humanity has imagined for a century is going to exist at some point and, with advances beginning to look like that may come sooner rather than later, it only makes sense that we discuss how we're going to handle its implications. After all, technology like this is likely to impact our lives in significant and varied ways, from our jobs and employment, to our interactions with our electronic devices, not to mention warfare.

I think the most interesting philosophical and moral questions surround these MEPs call to grant robots and AI with the designation of "electronic persons." The call has largely focused on saddling robotic "life" with many of the obligations humanity endures, such as tax obligations and being under the jurisdiction of humanity's legal system. But personhood can't only come with obligations; it must too come with rights. And there would be something strange in recognizing a robot's "personhood" while at the same time making use of its output or labor. The specter of slavery begins to rear its head at this point, brought on only by that very designation. Were they electronic "beasts", for instance, the question of slavery wouldn't arise outside of the fringe.

The MEPs report does also deal with the potential danger from AI and robots in its call for designers to "respect human frailty" when developing and programming these machine-lives. And here the report truly does delve into science fiction, but only out of deference to great literature.

Things descend slightly into the realms of science fiction when the report discusses the possibility of the machines we build becoming more intelligent than us posing “a challenge to humanity's capacity to control its own creation and, consequently, perhaps also to its capacity to be in charge of its own destiny.”

However, to stop us getting to this point the MEPs cite the importance of rules like those written by author Isaac Asimov for designers, producers, and operators of robots which state that: “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”; “A robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law” and “A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws.”

While some might laugh this off, this too is sensible. There is simply no reason to refuse to have a discussion about how a life, or a simulacrum of life, that is created by humanity, might pose a danger to that humanity, either at the level of the individual or the community.

But what strikes me most about all of this is how the EU seems to be the ones out in front of this, while any discussion in the Americas has been either muted or occurring behind closed doors. If this is a public discussion worth having in the EU, it is certainly one too worth having here.

from the are-you-next? dept

Stories about robots and their impressive capabilities are starting to crop up fairly often these days. It's no secret that they will soon be capable of replacing humans for many manual jobs, as they already do in some manufacturing industries. But so far, artificial intelligence (AI) has been viewed as more of a blue-sky area -- fascinating and exciting, but still the realm of research rather than the real world. Although AI certainly raises important questions for the future, not least philosophical and ethical ones, its impact on job security has not been at the forefront of concerns. But a recent decision by a Japanese insurance company to replace several dozen of its employees with an AI system suggests maybe it should be:

Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance believes [its move] will increase productivity by 30% and see a return on its investment in less than two years. The firm said it would save about 140m yen (£1m) a year after the 200m yen (£1.4m) AI system is installed this month. Maintaining it will cost about 15m yen (£100k) a year.

The system is based on IBM's Watson Explorer, which, according to the tech firm, possesses "cognitive technology that can think like a human”, enabling it to “analyse and interpret all of your data, including unstructured text, images, audio and video".

The technology will be able to read tens of thousands of medical certificates and factor in the length of hospital stays, medical histories and any surgical procedures before calculating payouts

It's noteworthy that IBM's Watson Explorer is being used by the insurance company in this way barely a year after the head of the Watson project stated flatly that his system wouldn't be replacing humans any time soon. That's a reflection of just how fast this sector is moving. Now would be a good time to check whether your job might be next.

Notes that there are no legal provisions that specifically apply to robotics, but that
existing legal regimes and doctrines can be readily applied to robotics while some
aspects appear to need specific consideration; calls on the Commission to come forward
with a balanced approach to intellectual property rights when applied to hardware and
software standards, and codes that protect innovation and at the same time foster
innovation; calls on the Commission to elaborate criteria for an ‘own intellectual
creation’ for copyrightable works produced by computers or robots;

And later:

The resolution calls on the Commission to come forward with a balanced approach to intellectual property rights when applied to hardware and software standards and codes that protect innovation and at the same time foster innovation. Moreover, the elaboration of criteria for "own intellectual creation" for copyrightable works produced by computers or robots is demanded.

The current insufficient legal framework on data protection and ownership is of great concern due to the (expected massive) flow of data arising from the use of robotics and AI.

This is both maddening and pointless. As we've already discussed with regards to the monkey selfie, it's pretty standard under copyright that it only applies to work created by persons, and not animals or machines. That matters quite a bit. In fact, just a few weeks ago I was in a conference session talking about questions about copyright and artificial intelligence, and a point that I made to people there was that the output of an AI is (currently) not subject to copyright and that's a good thing. Yet here we have the EU already proposing adding copyright to the output of AI without bothering to even consider if the concept makes sense or not.

It does not.

Again, the purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creation that benefits the public. It's not as if a robot or an AI is going to say that it won't create something new unless it gets copyright. You can just program it to create. That's the idea. The fact that politicians are already seriously looking at creating special copyright for patents and AI seems like more of the same old thinking of "everything needs copyright protection."

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

We have computers that can beat us at games like chess and Go (and Jeopardy!), but we haven't seen too many robots that can beat humans at more physical sports like soccer or tennis. We've seen some air hockey robots that are nearly unbeatable, so it's really only a matter of time before robots learn how to play sports with a few more dimensions. Here are some badminton robots that are inching toward playing better than some of us.

Badminton robots are getting better slowly. This robot has binocular vision from two cameras and was built by students at the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China. However, it cheats a little bit by using two rackets....

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Robot locomotion is a fascinating field of study, and it's mesmerizing to watch robots walk around like zombies, even if these robots aren't entirely practical or useful just yet. Presumably, these robots will someday cross the uncanny valley and move more reliably and smoothly. Until then, however, biomimicry for robots seems wide open to a variety of human-like or insect-like or worm-like combinations. (Watch out for centaur-like robot patents!)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Algorithms have already quietly crept into nearly every part of our lives, helping us to search the internet and connect with friends and to find matching personalities for dates. Soon, we'll have cars that drive us -- and some old Yakov Smirnoff jokes won't make any sense. But how will people adapt to a 'robot economy' where everything is done by robots -- and we can't even play games without knowing that the computers are just letting us win?

Will automation create jobs or just destroy them? Tech optimists seem to think that we're headed for a life of leisure as robots take over menial tasks and open up more careers that require compassion, creativity and leadership skills. Maybe we'll have more philosophers and physicists -- and basic income guarantees in a Star Trek-like future. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

from the build-something dept

It's another good week for makers and tinkerers on Kickstarter, with some cool new tools that make traditionally high-end technology available on a budget, plus another kid's toy that might catch the attention of a few grownups too.

For vehicles and robots of all sorts, autonomy is the biggest and most exciting innovative trend these days, and autonomous vehicles are generally powered by one core technology: scanning LiDAR. This is the laser-based sensory system that can map environments, detect objects, and let a computer "see" its surroundings — and while it's not entirely beyond the grasp of smaller-scale projects, until now getting a decent system was not cheap, and the LiDAR sensor was often the single most expensive component in a robot. That's what these two creators discovered when they were trying to build their own autonomous robots, so instead they set out to build Sweep: a high-quality LiDAR sensor that clocks in at a mere $250 but attempts to match the performance of systems that cost several thousands. If it works, the ultimate effect could be an explosion of autonomous devices for the average consumer, as makers and engineers everywhere can start having a bit more fun with this critical technology and keeping down the price of products they end up creating.

This one isn't especially fancy or revolutionary, it's just good. The Bela is a low-latency audio processor that does what it says on the tin, and aims to do it really well. One of the liveliest maker frontiers is music: digital technology enables an essentially infinite list of possibilities for modding instruments, building entirely new ones, and connecting instruments to other systems. But music is also still a precision art for many, and any fun or fancy new instrument needs one thing if it's going to be seriously usable: low latency. Any noticeable delay between hitting a key (or whatnot) and hearing the sound is infuriating and often intolerable. Bela is a tiny, embeddable, programmable audio processing board that boasts a response latency of less than 1ms — a fraction of that achieved even by MIDI on a powerful computer, or one of the iPhone's many high-end audio apps. If it can consistently deliver on that, it could end up in a whole lot of experimental synthesizers, circuit-bent keyboards and creative audio installations very soon.

Two weeks ago, I highlighted another tech toy that lets kids build robots. That one took the form of a single unit, with the focus primarily on the programming. The Tio is a neat twist, taking the form of two (or more!) controllable "blocks" that are designed to be mashed together with all sorts of other stuff — Lego pieces, paper and craft materials, old toys, 3D-printed components, and some custom accessories like wheels and pulleys. The focus is more on building (though programming with the app is possible) which opens them up to kids who might still be too young to dive headlong into code — but that's just a guess, because I'm not a parent. Truth is I just think I'd have fun playing with them myself.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Despite our supposed intelligence, humans don't actually know how our own brains work. But even in our ignorance, we're still developing algorithms and machines that might catch on to how we learn and think. Google's autonomous vehicle project has a pretty good driving record, except that the world is messy, and predicting how human drivers will react isn't always certain -- especially when they drive buses. Our relationship with robots is going to be more and more complex in the next few years. We'll need to recognize when robots are faulty, and that might get harder and harder to do.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Human intelligence is about to be bested by computers playing the game of Go, and software already soundly defeats people at games like chess and specific variations of poker. If we're trying to keep our smug superiority, people are still better than AI at MMORPGs and a few other skills... but it might not be too long before we hand over the controls of monetary policy to algorithms.